"We Live in a Society" - Sociology vs Armchair Ramblings About Society

in science •  23 days ago 

Demarcation Problem Part One.jpeg

We all occasionally find ourselves making claims about society – diagnosing problems, prognosticating on the course of social change, and prescribing solutions and policies. When we think about and speak to each other about these problems we unconsciously assume many things about the nature of societies. When an angry man in a tie proclaims that, “feminism and the welfare state are eroding away the American family,” for example, he is invoking an idea developed in the 19th Century that institutions such as the family serve important functions to society akin to what organs do for the organism, and we can gauge the health of our societies by looking at how their institutions function.

When the green-haired girl barks back at him that, “men have played a dominant role in society for centuries and they leverage their position to suppress women,” she is internalizing a similar view of the world that can be found in the writings of Karl Marx.

Neither one of them needs to be conscious that their ideas are products of a long history of debate. Neither needs to be explicitly aware of the assumptions they are making at all; they aren’t paid to think carefully about where their ideas come from. They are also not paid to come up with solutions to the problems they raise. Their interests in the problems of society only occur along side their living and acting in society. It would take away too much from their everyday lives if they stopped and critically examined their every thought and action. That’s no way to go about ordinary business. That kind of luxury is only available to those who are removed from the daily struggle for existence that ordinary people face.

According to French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, academics have this special privilege of being divorced from necessity. He has a special term for the condition of the academic—skhole. Whereas primitive man had to use his intellect for hunting and solving the problems most pertinent to his survival, Homo academicus is “outside the urgency of a practical situation” and so uses his intellect to solve problems he is disconnected from, “for the sole pleasure of resolving them.” The truths he discovers are highly abstract, context-free, and eternal.

This has been the case for the kind of thinking that goes on in universities until recently. For a long time, universities were for nobles and elites. The aristocratic classes, like academics, are removed from necessity, making them the perfect students for this kind of program. Today, universities have evolved into vocational training programs for masses of ordinary people entering into the new working poor class. Most of their professors, however, are still entrenched in the old tradition of skhole, and ill prepared to answer their students’ all-important questions why am I paying for this shit, and since when am I going to use this in the Real World™?

This is the first in a series of study guides for college students and lifelong learners which aims to answer those questions. It follows the same outline as a standard sociology curriculum and will eventually cover every topic, thinker, and method that you would come across in college sociology courses.

This unit’s topic is on the demarcation problem, which is split into 4 guides. Each answers the questions (1) where is the line between sociology and armchair ramblings about society; (2) what distinguishes sociology from other sciences; (2) how do sociology and biology stack up against each other in explaining human behavior; and, (4) do credentialed scientists do better work than citizen scientists?

Now, the first question. Where is the line between sociology and armchair ramblings about society? Recall our conversation with the angry man and the green-haired girl. Each of them has strong passions about social life and what they believe is the ideal political arrangement. When they each articulate their passions, they call upon what looks like sociological jargon and make claims that are in principle empirically testable—subject to controlled scientific investigation.

A more seasoned, perhaps mature, sociological thinker exercises a dispassionate position to social issues. This affords him the ability to remain cool and objective—to be able to propose to the angry man and green-haired girl, “what sorts of data would we need to find out if either of you are right, and how should we go about finding it?”

His question illustrates the other side of the coin of dispassion: epistemic humility. Mature sociological thinkers are always critically asking themselves ‘do I really know what I think I know?’

Armchair intellectuals don’t ask themselves this question—at least not seriously. Their way of reaching the truth on some matter comes via their sophisticated verbal acumen. They take it for granted that they must be correct about the cause of some social issue if others are unable to persuade him otherwise. And that’s just the thing about intellectuals: in a certain respect (i.e. their high IQ), they really are smarter than everybody else (often smarter than mature sociological thinkers)—they are much better at manipulating words and symbols, and successfully arguing for their position. In instances when they are wrong about something, they are wrong in such sophisticated and complex ways that it is too difficult to untangle.

Discussion Question: Have you ever found yourself changing your opinions on a social issue after years of feeling certain the opposite was true? What was this process like for you and how long did it take?

Disciplined sociologists take great precautions not to get tangled up in this way. Or, if they have, they spend years undoing the knots they made in their sophomore years. They get themselves into the habit of questioning why they think they know what they think they know, and continually design investigations to find out.

To recap: dispassion and epistemic humility separate disciplined sociology from armchair ramblings about society.

Discussion Question: If you are or were a college student, what compelled you to go? What was your major and do you still think your decision to go was necessary? Why?

Annotated Bibliography

[1] If you would like to learn more about what Bourdieu thought about the position of academics, you can read about that in chapter 6 of his Theory of Practical Reason here: https://monoskop.org/images/a/aa/Bourdieu_Pierre_Practical_Reason_On_the_Theory_1998.pdf

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Wow! What an interesting reading. Several things have caught my attention. I had never heard or read the following:

According to French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, academics have this special privilege of being divorced from necessity.

Honestly it seems very true. Academics can be immersed in reality but apart from necessity. It is debatable but very true.

On the other hand, you ask a series of questions at the end that make me reflect. However, it made me laugh:

They get themselves into the habit of questioning why they think they know what they think they know, and continually design investigations to find out.

I have met many sociologists as well!

And the latter is a reckless statement:

dispassion and epistemic humility separate disciplined sociology from armchair ramblings about society.

I think you are too rude to all sociologists. Or is it just about Bourdieu's way of seeing?
It has been a great pleasure to have read. Regards @coty-reh

Hey, thank you for reading! I'm glad you got something out of it.

As for your last statement, I don't know for sure if Bourdieu agrees with what I said. It's my statement, and you're sort of right in that I'm holding what counts as sociology to a high standard. I know that many sociologists will disagree with my statement that they need to be dispassionate and I expect to get a little push back for it. I will post part two of this essay tomorrow and it will defend my view about that a little more.

Thank you!

Back then I used to enjoy feminism ideology. Now I see males and females actually complement each other. After going through some journey in self-development and fall deeper into spiritual realms I come to realize anything that we perceive wrong/bad is because they are an imbalance in their female/male energy self.
For the second question, I won't be taking Marine Science as my course in tertiary education if I had known about my soul blueprint, Natal birth chart they called it in astrology. I would have taken psychology instead as my passion and inborn gift seems to be in this field.
Thank you for your insights. Will read your other post when I have the chance.

Posted using Partiko Android

  ·  22 days ago (edited)

This is a brilliant, thought-provoking post. I think you will do very well on SteemIt. Followed & hope to see more great content soon.

P.S. To help get you started here on Steem I've sent you a share of SBI from @steembasicincome


Thank you! And thanks for reading :)

Hello Hello!

In itself, the subject is great but wow you were so detailed and wrote so consistently that I loved it

Greetings from Venezuela

Congratulations @coty-reh! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You published your First Post
You got a First Vote
You made your First Vote
You received more than 10 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 50 upvotes.

You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!

Hi coty-reh,

This post has been upvoted by the Curie community curation project and associated vote trail as exceptional content (human curated and reviewed). Have a great day :)

Visit curiesteem.com or join the Curie Discord community to learn more.

Hello @coty-reh, thank you for sharing this creative work! We just stopped by to say that you've been upvoted by the @creativecrypto magazine. The Creative Crypto is all about art on the blockchain and learning from creatives like you. Looking forward to crossing paths again soon. Steem on!